Based on the current law, that's true. However, I think they should also be legally responsible for what's on their platform if they want to use it to control speech.

We need to revise section 230 to remove protection for platforms that don't act as common carriers.

An anecdote won't really prove anything, but I do have experience using multiple FEA tools. I would argue that anyone using that software without a solid understanding of the math behind it is at serious risk of misinterpreting the solutions. There are some easily identifiable failures of these solvers, but there are also quite a few that can give you the wrong answer with no detectable indications unless you comprehend what's going on behind the scenes.

So I think there's definitely a need to teach PDEs and linear algebra. Although, I also agree that the statistics is not emphasized enough. It's a critical element in understanding things like material properties, fatigue, vibration and measurement systems. Those are just as important to ensuring that a design is adequate as getting accurate FE analysis results.

Yes, I do wish the law said what I was describing. We should change it to reflect that.

I wasn't arguing what the law is. I was arguing what it should be.

They advertise themselves as being a platform for individuals to connect directly with other end users. That is the fundamental aspect that constitutes a public square. That they are pulling a bait & switch by manipulating the content that the users see shouldn't be a surprise. Although, it should disqualify them from protections that are intended for common carriers.

I'm not confusing the roads and yards. Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are intentionally conflating the two by pretending to be one while acting like the other.

What I would like to see is this. There should be two clearly defined roles: common carrier & publisher (road-like and yard like, respectively). And all media should have to declare what aspects of their operations are one or the other. For example, sites like slashdot can have their edited stories, labeled as published by slashdot and the comments can be a common carrier section. Sites that declare common carrier sections and then exercise editorial control over them risk liability for all of the content in that section (and possible additional punitive penalties for repeat offenses).

I'm all for net neutrality (i.e. services should not discriminate based on content or source) and if you are too, then I don't see why you would oppose requiring sites to provide a content neutral service to maintain their protection from legal liability. It is the exact same principle. Facebook provides an internet service for users to share posts with each other and they should not be abusing their position as a service provider to control which messages get heard.

Agreed, but those who choose to repeat others speech should be responsible for the consequences when they pick and choose whose speech and what messages they repeat.

You missed the whole point of my post. A website isn't like your yard at all. Your yard doesn't have the same legal protections and you don't advertise that anyone can go post signs there.

On top of that, the analogy of your yard is flawed in that the landscape is different between physical real estate and the internet. The internet is multiple layers of privately owned spaces and services with no equivalent to public roads and town squares. So there is no open forum for free speech on the internet unless the site owner (and any service providers) grant it. We need to protect those who do provide that public service to ensure that they will continue to exist. However, we also need to hold sites accountable for the messages on them when they control what messages are being distributed.

Sure that's fair as long as you are taking legal responsibility for all of the messages you are hosting on your lawn.

The problem is that web hosts and site operators are not held liable for the messages on their platform due to section 230 of the CDA. They have legal protection from those messages and with that comes the duty not to exercise editorial control of the messages in that space.

You don't have that freedom now. Individuals are already liable for their own speech, even on the internet. There are some jurisdiction and practical barriers that help prevent you from being sued or charged, but it can be done. The federal protections that are defined under section 230 are only applicable to what other people say using a service you provide.

Section 230 doesn't protect individuals from what they say online and no one is calling for removing common carrier protections entirely. So your projection of furthering control of the media is bullshit.

Any service that upholds the principles of a common carrier (i.e. transparently convey the speech of others equally without regard to content) will still get such protections.

What the limitations on free speech are isn't the issue. The issue is that these social media companies are abusing an exception to these laws that has been carved out for common carriers. The logic behind the exception is that when you provide a service to facilitate the speech of others, you are doing a public good by reducing barriers to open public speech. Since they are just transparently conveying the speech of others, the originator and not the service itself should be liable for the speech.

What these social media companies are doing now is filtering and combining others speech (and in the process suppressing the speech of their users) to exercise their own speech. This violates the fundamental agreement that underpins their status as a common carrier.

How is that different from how the internet operates now? It's pretty much the same except the "content aggregators" are the big 3 companies themselves and aren't held accountable for it.

This seems to be true of all words these days. Accurate, nuanced descriptions don't provide enough attention grabbing punch. You get so much more response by using the most extreme language available regardless of whether such language is warranted.

That's a disingenuous argument. You understand the difference perfectly well, but set up a straw man to distract from the point and push a conflicting agenda.

You're going well beyond spinning these days and should change your handle to lying propagandist.